DOCSLIB.ORG

Logic and Categories As Tools for Building Theories

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Logic and Categories As Tools for Building Theories Logic and Categories As Tools For Building Theories Samson Abramsky Oxford University Computing Laboratory 1 Introduction My aim in this short article is to provide an impression of some of the ideas emerging at the interface of logic and computer science, in a form which I hope will be accessible to philosophers. Why is this even a good idea? Because there has been a huge interaction of logic and computer science over the past half-century which has not only played an important r^olein shaping Computer Science, but has also greatly broadened the scope and enriched the content of logic itself.1 This huge effect of Computer Science on Logic over the past five decades has several aspects: new ways of using logic, new attitudes to logic, new questions and methods. These lead to new perspectives on the question: What logic is | and should be! Our main concern is with method and attitude rather than matter; nevertheless, we shall base the general points we wish to make on a case study: Category theory. Many other examples could have been used to illustrate our theme, but this will serve to illustrate some of the points we wish to make. 2 Category Theory Category theory is a vast subject. It has enormous potential for any serious version of `formal philosophy' | and yet this has hardly been realized. We shall begin with introduction to some basic elements of category theory, focussing on the fascinating conceptual issues which arise even at the most elementary level of the subject, and then discuss some its consequences and philosophical ramifications. 2.1 Some Basic Notions of Category Theory We briefly recall the basic definitions. A category has a collections of objects A, B, C, . , and a collection of arrows (or morphisms) f, g h . Each arrow has specified objects as its domain and codomain.2 We write f : A ! B for an arrow with domain A and codomain B. For any triple of objects A; B; C there is an operation of composition: given f : A ! B and g : B ! C, we can form g ◦ f : A ! C. Note that the codomain of f has to match with the domain of g. Moreover, for each object A, there is an identity arrow idA : A ! A. These data are subject to the following axioms: h ◦ (g ◦ f) = (h ◦ g) ◦ f f ◦ idA = f = idB ◦ f whenever the indicated compositions make sense, i.e. the domains and codomains match appro- priately. These definitions appear at first sight fairly innocuous: some kind of algebraic structure, rem- iniscent of monoids (groups without inverses), but with the clumsy-looking apparatus of objects, 1This view is not universally held, either among Computer Scientists or logicians, but I and many of my colleagues do believe it | and we are right! 2More formally, there are operations dom, cod from arrows to objects. 1 domains and codomains restricting the possibilities for composition of arrows. These first appear- ances are deceptive, as we shall see, although in a few pages we can only convey a glimpse of the richness of the notions which arise as the theory unfolds. Let us now see some first examples of categories. • The most basic example of a category is Set: the objects are sets, and the arrows are functions. Composition and identities have their usual meaning for functions. • Any kind of mathematical structure, together with structure preserving functions, forms a category. E.g. { Mon (monoids and monoid homomorphisms) { Grp (groups and group homomorphisms) { Vectk (vector spaces over a field k, and linear maps) { Pos (partially ordered sets and monotone functions) { Top (topological spaces and continuous functions) • Rel: objects are sets, arrows R : X ! Y are relations R ⊆ X × Y . Relational composition: R; S(x; z) () 9y: R(x; y) ^ S(y; z) • Let k be a field (for example, the real or complex numbers). Consider the following category Matk. The objects are natural numbers. A morphism M : n ! m is an n × m matrix with entries in k. Composition is matrix multiplication, and the identity on n is the n × n diagonal matrix. • Monoids are one-object categories. Arrows correspond to the elements of the monoid, com- position of arrows to the monoid multiplication, and the identity arrow to the monoid unit. • A category in which for each pair of objects A, B there is at most one morphism from A to B is the same thing as a preorder, i.e. a reflexive and transitive relation. Note that the identity arrows correspond to reflexivity, and composition to transitivity. 2.1.1 Categories as Contexts and as Structures Note that our first class of examples illustrate the idea of categories as mathematical contexts; settings in which various mathematical theories can be developed. Thus for example, Top is the context for general topology, Grp is the context for group theory, etc. This issue of \mathematics in context" should be emphasized. The idea that any mathematical discussion is relative to the category we happen to be working in is pervasive and fundamental. It allows us simultaneously to be both properly specific and general: specific, in that statements about mathematical structures are not really precise until we have specified which structures we are dealing with, and which morphisms we are considering | i.e. which category we are working in. At the same time, the awareness that we are working in some category allows us to extract the proper generality for any definition or theorem, by identifying exactly which properties of the ambient category we are using. On the other hand, the last two examples illustrate that many important mathematical struc- tures themselves appear as categories of particular kinds. The fact that two such different kinds of structures as monoids and posets should appear as extremal versions of categories is also rather striking. This ability to capture mathematics both \in the large" and \in the small" is a first indication of the flexibility and power of categories. 2 2.1.2 Arrows vs. Elements Notice that the axioms for cateories are formulated purely in terms of the algebraic operations on arrows, without any reference to `elements' of the objects. Indeed, in general elements are not available in a category. We will refer to any concept which can be defined purely in terms of composition and identities as arrow-theoretic. We will now take a first step towards learning to \think with arrows" by seeing how we can replace some familiar definitions for functions between sets couched in terms of elements by arrow-theoretic equivalents. We say that a function f : X −! Y is: injective if 8x; x0 2 X: f(x) = f(x0) =) x = x0 , surjective if 8y 2 Y: 9x 2 X: f(x) = y , monic if 8g; h : Z ! X: f ◦ g = f ◦ h =) g = h , epic if 8g; h : Y ! Z: g ◦ f = h ◦ f =) g = h . Note that injectivity and surjectivity are formulated in terms of elements, while epic and monic are arrow-theoretic. Proposition 1 Let f : X ! Y . Then: 1. f is injective iff f is monic. 2. f is surjective iff f is epic. Proof We show 1. Suppose f : X ! Y is injective, and that f ◦ g = f ◦ h, where g; h : Z ! X. Then for all z 2 Z: f(g(z)) = f ◦ g(z) = f ◦ h(z) = f(h(z)) : Since f is injective, this implies g(z) = h(z). Hence we have shown that 8z 2 Z: g(z) = h(z) ; and so we can conclude that g = h. So f injective implies f monic. For the converse, fix a one-element set 1 = {•}. Note that elements x 2 X are in 1{1 correspon- dence with functionsx ¯ : 1 ! X, wherex ¯(•) := x. Moreover, if f(x) = y theny ¯ = f ◦ x¯ . Writing injectivity in these terms, it amounts to the following: 8x; x0 2 X: f ◦ x¯ = f ◦ x¯0 =) x¯ =x ¯0: Thus we see that being injective is a special case of being monic. The reader will enjoy | and learn from | proving the equivalence for functions of the condi- tions of being surjective and epic. 2.1.3 Generality of Notions Since the concepts of monic and epic are defined in purely arrow-theoretic terms, they make sense in any category. This possibility for making definitions in vast generality by formulating them in purely arrow-theoretic terms can be applied to virtually all the fundamental notions and constructions which pervade mathematics. As an utterly elementary, indeed \trivial" example, consider the notion of isomorphism. What is an isomorphism in general? On might try a definition at the level of generality of model theory, or Bourbaki-style structures, but this is really both unnecessarily elaborate, and still insufficiently general. Category theory has exactly the language needed to give a perfectly general answer to the question, in any mathematical context, as specified by a category. An isomorphism in a category C is an arrow f : A ! B with a two-sided inverse: an arrow g : B ! A such that g ◦ f = idA; f ◦ g = idB: 3 One can check that in Set this yields the notion of bijection; in Grp it yields isomorphism of groups; in Top it yields homeomorphism; in Matk, it yields the usual notion of invertible matrix; and so on throughout the range of mathematical structures. In a monoid considered as a category, an isomorphism is an invertible element. Thus a group is exactly a one-object category in which every arrow is an isomorphism! This cries out for generalization; and the notion of a category in which every arrow is an isomorphism is indeed significant | it is the idea of a groupoid, which plays a key r^olein modern geometry and topology.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Finite Sum – Product Logic
    Theory and Applications of Categories, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 63–99. FINITE SUM – PRODUCT LOGIC J.R.B. COCKETT1 AND R.A.G. SEELY2 ABSTRACT. In this paper we describe a deductive system for categories with finite products and coproducts, prove decidability of equality of morphisms via cut elimina- tion, and prove a “Whitman theorem” for the free such categories over arbitrary base categories. This result provides a nice illustration of some basic techniques in categorical proof theory, and also seems to have slipped past unproved in previous work in this field. Furthermore, it suggests a type-theoretic approach to 2–player input–output games. Introduction In the late 1960’s Lambekintroduced the notion of a “deductive system”, by which he meant the presentation of a sequent calculus for a logic as a category, whose objects were formulas of the logic, and whose arrows were (equivalence classes of) sequent deriva- tions. He noticed that “doctrines” of categories corresponded under this construction to certain logics. The classic example of this was cartesian closed categories, which could then be regarded as the “proof theory” for the ∧ – ⇒ fragment of intuitionistic propo- sitional logic. (An excellent account of this may be found in the classic monograph [Lambek–Scott 1986].) Since his original work, many categorical doctrines have been given similar analyses, but it seems one simple case has been overlooked, viz. the doctrine of categories with finite products and coproducts (without any closed structure and with- out any extra assumptions concerning distributivity of the one over the other). We began looking at this case with the thought that it would provide a nice simple introduction to some techniques in categorical proof theory, particularly the idea of rewriting systems modulo equations, which we have found useful in investigating categorical structures with two tensor products (“linearly distributive categories” [Blute et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 of Concrete Abstractions: an Introduction to Computer
    Out of print; full text available for free at http://www.gustavus.edu/+max/concrete-abstractions.html CHAPTER TWO Recursion and Induction 2.1 Recursion We have used Scheme to write procedures that describe how certain computational processes can be carried out. All the procedures we've discussed so far generate processes of a ®xed size. For example, the process generated by the procedure square always does exactly one multiplication no matter how big or how small the number we're squaring is. Similarly, the procedure pinwheel generates a process that will do exactly the same number of stack and turn operations when we use it on a basic block as it will when we use it on a huge quilt that's 128 basic blocks long and 128 basic blocks wide. Furthermore, the size of the procedure (that is, the size of the procedure's text) is a good indicator of the size of the processes it generates: Small procedures generate small processes and large procedures generate large processes. On the other hand, there are procedures of a ®xed size that generate computa- tional processes of varying sizes, depending on the values of their parameters, using a technique called recursion. To illustrate this, the following is a small, ®xed-size procedure for making paper chains that can still make chains of arbitrary lengthÐ it has a parameter n for the desired length. You'll need a bunch of long, thin strips of paper and some way of joining the ends of a strip to make a loop. You can use tape, a stapler, or if you use slitted strips of cardstock that look like this , you can just slip the slits together.
    [Show full text]
  • A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints
    A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints by Mehrdad Sabetzadeh A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Copyright c 2003 by Mehrdad Sabetzadeh Abstract A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints Mehrdad Sabetzadeh Master of Science Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto 2003 Eliciting the requirements for a proposed system typically involves different stakeholders with different expertise, responsibilities, and perspectives. This may result in inconsis- tencies between the descriptions provided by stakeholders. Viewpoints-based approaches have been proposed as a way to manage incomplete and inconsistent models gathered from multiple sources. In this thesis, we propose a category-theoretic framework for the analysis of fuzzy viewpoints. Informally, a fuzzy viewpoint is a graph in which the elements of a lattice are used to specify the amount of knowledge available about the details of nodes and edges. By defining an appropriate notion of morphism between fuzzy viewpoints, we construct categories of fuzzy viewpoints and prove that these categories are (finitely) cocomplete. We then show how colimits can be employed to merge the viewpoints and detect the inconsistencies that arise independent of any particular choice of viewpoint semantics. Taking advantage of the same category-theoretic techniques used in defining fuzzy viewpoints, we will also introduce a more general graph-based formalism that may find applications in other contexts. ii To my mother and father with love and gratitude. Acknowledgements First of all, I wish to thank my supervisor Steve Easterbrook for his guidance, support, and patience.
    [Show full text]
  • A Very Short Note on Homotopy Λ-Calculus
    A very short note on homotopy λ-calculus Vladimir Voevodsky September 27, 2006, October 10, 2009 The homotopy λ-calculus is a hypothetical (at the moment) type system. To some extent one may say that Hλ is an attempt to bridge the gap between the "classical" type systems such as the ones of PVS or HOL Light and polymorphic type systems such as the one of Coq. The main problem with the polymorphic type systems lies in the properties of the equality types. As soon as we have a universe U of which P rop is a member we are in trouble. In the Boolean case, P rop has an automorphism of order 2 (the negation) and it is clear that this automorphism should correspond to a member of Eq(U; P rop; P rop). However, as far as I understand there is no way to produce such a member in, say, Coq. A related problem looks as follows. Suppose T;T 0 : U are two type expressions and there exists an isomorphism T ! T 0 (the later notion of course requires the notion of equality for members of T and T 0). Clearly, any proposition which is true for T should be true for T 0 i.e. for all functions P : U ! P rop one should have P (T ) = P (T 0). Again as far as I understand this can not be proved in Coq no matter what notion of equality for members of T and T 0 we use. Here is the general picture as I understand it at the moment.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations
    Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations Evan Patterson Department of Statistics, Stanford University Abstract We introduce the relational ontology log, or relational olog, a knowledge representation system based on the category of sets and relations. It is inspired by Spivak and Kent’s olog, a recent categorical framework for knowledge representation. Relational ologs interpolate between ologs and description logic, the dominant formalism for knowledge representation today. In this paper, we investigate relational ologs both for their own sake and to gain insight into the relationship between the algebraic and logical approaches to knowledge representation. On a practical level, we show by example that relational ologs have a friendly and intuitive—yet fully precise—graphical syntax, derived from the string diagrams of monoidal categories. We explain several other useful features of relational ologs not possessed by most description logics, such as a type system and a rich, flexible notion of instance data. In a more theoretical vein, we draw on categorical logic to show how relational ologs can be translated to and from logical theories in a fragment of first-order logic. Although we make extensive use of categorical language, this paper is designed to be self-contained and has considerable expository content. The only prerequisites are knowledge of first-order logic and the rudiments of category theory. 1. Introduction arXiv:1706.00526v2 [cs.AI] 1 Nov 2017 The representation of human knowledge in computable form is among the oldest and most fundamental problems of artificial intelligence. Several recent trends are stimulating continued research in the field of knowledge representation (KR).
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Category Theory and Categorical Logic
    An Introduction to Category Theory and Categorical Logic Wolfgang Jeltsch Category theory An Introduction to Category Theory basics Products, coproducts, and and Categorical Logic exponentials Categorical logic Functors and Wolfgang Jeltsch natural transformations Monoidal TTU¨ K¨uberneetika Instituut categories and monoidal functors Monads and Teooriaseminar comonads April 19 and 26, 2012 References An Introduction to Category Theory and Categorical Logic Category theory basics Wolfgang Jeltsch Category theory Products, coproducts, and exponentials basics Products, coproducts, and Categorical logic exponentials Categorical logic Functors and Functors and natural transformations natural transformations Monoidal categories and Monoidal categories and monoidal functors monoidal functors Monads and comonads Monads and comonads References References An Introduction to Category Theory and Categorical Logic Category theory basics Wolfgang Jeltsch Category theory Products, coproducts, and exponentials basics Products, coproducts, and Categorical logic exponentials Categorical logic Functors and Functors and natural transformations natural transformations Monoidal categories and Monoidal categories and monoidal functors monoidal functors Monads and Monads and comonads comonads References References An Introduction to From set theory to universal algebra Category Theory and Categorical Logic Wolfgang Jeltsch I classical set theory (for example, Zermelo{Fraenkel): I sets Category theory basics I functions from sets to sets Products, I composition
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1811.04966V3 [Math.NT]
    Descartes’ rule of signs, Newton polygons, and polynomials over hyperfields Matthew Baker and Oliver Lorscheid Abstract. In this note, we develop a theory of multiplicities of roots for polynomials over hyperfields and use this to provide a unified and conceptual proof of both Descartes’ rule of signs and Newton’s “polygon rule”. Introduction Given a real polynomial p ∈ R[T ], Descartes’ rule of signs provides an upper bound for the number of positive (resp. negative) real roots of p in terms of the signs of the coeffi- cients of p. Specifically, the number of positive real roots of p (counting multiplicities) is bounded above by the number of sign changes in the coefficients of p(T ), and the number of negative roots is bounded above by the number of sign changes in the coefficients of p(−T ). Another classical “rule”, which is less well known to mathematicians in general but is used quite often in number theory, is Newton’s polygon rule. This rule concerns polynomi- als over fields equipped with a valuation, which is a function v : K → R ∪{∞} satisfying • v(a) = ∞ if and only if a = 0 • v(ab) = v(a) + v(b) • v(a + b) > min{v(a),v(b)}, with equality if v(a) 6= v(b) for all a,b ∈ K. An example is the p-adic valuation vp on Q, where p is a prime number, given by the formula vp(s/t) = ordp(s) − ordp(t), where ordp(n) is the maximum power of p dividing a nonzero integer n. Another example is the T -adic valuation v on k(T), for any field k, given by v ( f /g) = arXiv:1811.04966v3 [math.NT] 26 May 2020 T T ordT ( f )−ordT (g), where ordT ( f ) is the maximum power of T dividing a nonzero polyno- mial f ∈ k[T].
    [Show full text]
  • Topological Properties of the Real Numbers Object in a Topos Cahiers De Topologie Et Géométrie Différentielle Catégoriques, Tome 17, No 3 (1976), P
    CAHIERS DE TOPOLOGIE ET GÉOMÉTRIE DIFFÉRENTIELLE CATÉGORIQUES LAWRENCE NEFF STOUT Topological properties of the real numbers object in a topos Cahiers de topologie et géométrie différentielle catégoriques, tome 17, no 3 (1976), p. 295-326 <http://www.numdam.org/item?id=CTGDC_1976__17_3_295_0> © Andrée C. Ehresmann et les auteurs, 1976, tous droits réservés. L’accès aux archives de la revue « Cahiers de topologie et géométrie différentielle catégoriques » implique l’accord avec les conditions générales d’utilisation (http://www.numdam.org/conditions). Toute utilisation commerciale ou impression systématique est constitutive d’une infraction pénale. Toute copie ou impression de ce fichier doit contenir la présente mention de copyright. Article numérisé dans le cadre du programme Numérisation de documents anciens mathématiques http://www.numdam.org/ CAHIERS DE TOPOLOGIE Vol. XVIl-3 (1976) ET GEOMETRIE DIFFERENTIELLE TOPOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF THE REAL NUMBERS OBJECT IN A TOPOS * by Lawrence Neff STOUT In his presentation at the categories Session at Oberwolfach in 1973, Tierney defined the continuous reals for a topos with a natural numbers ob- ject (he called them Dedekind reals). Mulvey studied the algebraic proper- ties of the object of continuous reals and proved that the construction gave the sheaf of germs of continuous functions from X to R in the spatial topos Sh(X). This paper presents the results of the study of the topological prop- erties of the continuous reals with an emphasis on similarities with classi- cal mathematics and applications to familiar concepts rephrased in topos terms. The notations used for the constructions in the internal logic of a topos conform to that of Osius [11].
    [Show full text]
  • Categorical Semantics of Constructive Set Theory
    Categorical semantics of constructive set theory Beim Fachbereich Mathematik der Technischen Universit¨atDarmstadt eingereichte Habilitationsschrift von Benno van den Berg, PhD aus Emmen, die Niederlande 2 Contents 1 Introduction to the thesis 7 1.1 Logic and metamathematics . 7 1.2 Historical intermezzo . 8 1.3 Constructivity . 9 1.4 Constructive set theory . 11 1.5 Algebraic set theory . 15 1.6 Contents . 17 1.7 Warning concerning terminology . 18 1.8 Acknowledgements . 19 2 A unified approach to algebraic set theory 21 2.1 Introduction . 21 2.2 Constructive set theories . 24 2.3 Categories with small maps . 25 2.3.1 Axioms . 25 2.3.2 Consequences . 29 2.3.3 Strengthenings . 31 2.3.4 Relation to other settings . 32 2.4 Models of set theory . 33 2.5 Examples . 35 2.6 Predicative sheaf theory . 36 2.7 Predicative realizability . 37 3 Exact completion 41 3.1 Introduction . 41 3 4 CONTENTS 3.2 Categories with small maps . 45 3.2.1 Classes of small maps . 46 3.2.2 Classes of display maps . 51 3.3 Axioms for classes of small maps . 55 3.3.1 Representability . 55 3.3.2 Separation . 55 3.3.3 Power types . 55 3.3.4 Function types . 57 3.3.5 Inductive types . 58 3.3.6 Infinity . 60 3.3.7 Fullness . 61 3.4 Exactness and its applications . 63 3.5 Exact completion . 66 3.6 Stability properties of axioms for small maps . 73 3.6.1 Representability . 74 3.6.2 Separation . 74 3.6.3 Power types .
    [Show full text]
  • Diagrammatics in Categorification and Compositionality
    Diagrammatics in Categorification and Compositionality by Dmitry Vagner Department of Mathematics Duke University Date: Approved: Ezra Miller, Supervisor Lenhard Ng Sayan Mukherjee Paul Bendich Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Mathematics in the Graduate School of Duke University 2019 ABSTRACT Diagrammatics in Categorification and Compositionality by Dmitry Vagner Department of Mathematics Duke University Date: Approved: Ezra Miller, Supervisor Lenhard Ng Sayan Mukherjee Paul Bendich An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Mathematics in the Graduate School of Duke University 2019 Copyright c 2019 by Dmitry Vagner All rights reserved Abstract In the present work, I explore the theme of diagrammatics and their capacity to shed insight on two trends|categorification and compositionality|in and around contemporary category theory. The work begins with an introduction of these meta- phenomena in the context of elementary sets and maps. Towards generalizing their study to more complicated domains, we provide a self-contained treatment|from a pedagogically novel perspective that introduces almost all concepts via diagrammatic language|of the categorical machinery with which we may express the broader no- tions found in the sequel. The work then branches into two seemingly unrelated disciplines: dynamical systems and knot theory. In particular, the former research defines what it means to compose dynamical systems in a manner analogous to how one composes simple maps. The latter work concerns the categorification of the slN link invariant. In particular, we use a virtual filtration to give a more diagrammatic reconstruction of Khovanov-Rozansky homology via a smooth TQFT.
    [Show full text]
  • The Petit Topos of Globular Sets
    Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 154 (2000) 299–315 www.elsevier.com/locate/jpaa View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector The petit topos of globular sets Ross Street ∗ Macquarie University, N. S. W. 2109, Australia Communicated by M. Tierney Dedicated to Bill Lawvere Abstract There are now several deÿnitions of weak !-category [1,2,5,19]. What is pleasing is that they are not achieved by ad hoc combinatorics. In particular, the theory of higher operads which underlies Michael Batanin’s deÿnition is based on globular sets. The purpose of this paper is to show that many of the concepts of [2] (also see [17]) arise in the natural development of category theory internal to the petit 1 topos Glob of globular sets. For example, higher spans turn out to be internal sets, and, in a sense, trees turn out to be internal natural numbers. c 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. MSC: 18D05 1. Globular objects and !-categories A globular set is an inÿnite-dimensional graph. To formalize this, let G denote the category whose objects are natural numbers and whose only non-identity arrows are m;m : m → n for all m¡n ∗ Tel.: +61-2-9850-8921; fax: 61-2-9850-8114. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Street). 1 The distinction between toposes that are “space like” (or petit) and those which are “category-of-space like” (or gros) was investigated by Lawvere [9,10]. The gros topos of re exive globular sets has been studied extensively by Michael Roy [12].
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Category Theory and Topos Theory
    Basic Category Theory and Topos Theory Jaap van Oosten Jaap van Oosten Department of Mathematics Utrecht University The Netherlands Revised, February 2016 Contents 1 Categories and Functors 1 1.1 Definitions and examples . 1 1.2 Some special objects and arrows . 5 2 Natural transformations 8 2.1 The Yoneda lemma . 8 2.2 Examples of natural transformations . 11 2.3 Equivalence of categories; an example . 13 3 (Co)cones and (Co)limits 16 3.1 Limits . 16 3.2 Limits by products and equalizers . 23 3.3 Complete Categories . 24 3.4 Colimits . 25 4 A little piece of categorical logic 28 4.1 Regular categories and subobjects . 28 4.2 The logic of regular categories . 34 4.3 The language L(C) and theory T (C) associated to a regular cat- egory C ................................ 39 4.4 The category C(T ) associated to a theory T : Completeness Theorem 41 4.5 Example of a regular category . 44 5 Adjunctions 47 5.1 Adjoint functors . 47 5.2 Expressing (co)completeness by existence of adjoints; preserva- tion of (co)limits by adjoint functors . 52 6 Monads and Algebras 56 6.1 Algebras for a monad . 57 6.2 T -Algebras at least as complete as D . 61 6.3 The Kleisli category of a monad . 62 7 Cartesian closed categories and the λ-calculus 64 7.1 Cartesian closed categories (ccc's); examples and basic facts . 64 7.2 Typed λ-calculus and cartesian closed categories . 68 7.3 Representation of primitive recursive functions in ccc's with nat- ural numbers object .
    [Show full text]